Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

Posts

You know what? Monks and nuns of various persuasions have carved out small enclaves of their own ideal worlds. Many of them have lasted through more than one "Statist" model. If they can do it through religious motivation, then there's no way that hardcore Libertarians or Anarchists couldn't. Hell, David Koresh and his Waco sect would still be around if they didn't stockpile guns. Jim Jones and his flock could have made their compound successful if he wasn't crazy. There are actually modern examples of people striking out against the grain but hamstrung by religion. There are places for people who want to self-govern. And an anarchist collective wouldn't come across the same issues that they did.

A peaceful, sane group should be able to strike out somewhere, and would flourish if only some anarchist group was interested in that instead of fighting the status-quo directly.

The problem is that this is an inconsistent belief that doesn't make sense. Its like saying that you believe in probabilities greater than 1 and less than zero. All exercised authority must, by definition, be non-consensual to at least one party. If it is not non-consensual then it does not need to be exercised and is such not authority.

If we say that you can authorize these things in advance (and that they cannot take that consent back) then all society is anarchist by that definition because people have indicated their consent by continuing within the state.

The only way you can have a system without that is if you have a system without authority. And a system without authority is a system that fails.

It is the same situation when anarchists say "we just want a society without hierarchy". But authority requires hierarchy and authority is necessary for the functioning of the system.

You know what? Monks and nuns of various persuasions have carved out small enclaves of their own ideal worlds. Many of them have lasted through more than one "Statist" model. If they can do it through religious motivation, then there's no way that hardcore Libertarians or Anarchists couldn't. Hell, David Koresh and his Waco sect would still be around if they didn't stockpile guns. Jim Jones and his flock could have made their compound successful if he wasn't crazy. There are actually modern examples of people striking out against the grain but hamstrung by religion. There are places for people who want to self-govern. And an anarchist collective wouldn't come across the same issues that they did.

A peaceful, sane group should be able to strike out somewhere, and would flourish if only some anarchist group was interested in that instead of fighting the status-quo directly.

What such group isn't funded, protected, or repopulated by outside forces? And which of those aren't the infamous abusive locations?

You know what? Monks and nuns of various persuasions have carved out small enclaves of their own ideal worlds. Many of them have lasted through more than one "Statist" model. If they can do it through religious motivation, then there's no way that hardcore Libertarians or Anarchists couldn't. Hell, David Koresh and his Waco sect would still be around if they didn't stockpile guns. Jim Jones and his flock could have made their compound successful if he wasn't crazy. There are actually modern examples of people striking out against the grain but hamstrung by religion. There are places for people who want to self-govern. And an anarchist collective wouldn't come across the same issues that they did.

A peaceful, sane group should be able to strike out somewhere, and would flourish if only some anarchist group was interested in that instead of fighting the status-quo directly.

And these enclaves are located in, and subject to the laws of, a State. Waco is in Texas, as you may recall. Koresh and his followers were thus protected by statist national defense, statist police, statist clean air laws, statist property rights.....in other words, they were able to "carve out an enclave" because a state enabled them to do so. If Libya tried to invade the Koresh compound, the US armed forces would have stopped them. If a rival sect wanted to seize Koresh's land, Texas police would have intervened. If a company wanted to build a nuclear power plant right next door to his compound, a whole alphabet soup of government agencies would have had something to say about it.

The problem is that this is an inconsistent belief that doesn't make sense. Its like saying that you believe in probabilities greater than 1 and less than zero. All exercised authority must, by definition, be non-consensual to at least one party. If it is not non-consensual then it does not need to be exercised and is such not authority.

If we say that you can authorize these things in advance (and that they cannot take that consent back) then all society is anarchist by that definition because people have indicated their consent by continuing within the state.

The only way you can have a system without that is if you have a system without authority. And a system without authority is a system that fails.

It is the same situation when anarchists say "we just want a society without hierarchy". But authority requires hierarchy and authority is necessary for the functioning of the system.

You don't believe in a consensual authority? What about a college professor, or a doctor, or a dominatrix?

I disagree that authority is inherently hierarchical or non-consensual, if you think of authority as "being in charge". Again, take the OWS example. It is a horizontal, leaderless movement, but it's not without authorities. At your local chapter, there's probably some people in charge of media, some others in charge of organizing and planning, others in charge of kitchen, library, meeting spaces, legal, finance, press, and so on. Any random yahoo can't, for instance, announce where the next general assembly meeting is going to be and expect to be listened to. There are people in charge of that. But the community has chosen to organize itself this way voluntarily, collectively delegating authority and responsibility to the willing. I agree to let persons X, Y, and Z be in charge of Thing 1 because I'm in charge of doing Thing 2.

Again, a viable blueprint for society at large? Of course not. And I think the more realistic anarchists would admit that a society completely without some non-consensual authority would be impossible, but the goal is to minimize hierarchical, oppressive authority wherever it is possible.

Worker-control of industry is absolutely possible, it's happened, and not only in this instance. So that's proven, I mean, I don't know what else you need. Isn't the point that we acknowledge the redundancy of the bosses, executives, the rentier class, all those parasites who earn wealth just through their idle ownership of property? That's the point as far as I'm concerned: We don't need those people!

Doesn't this just substitute one rentier class for another - the bureaucracy of the management class for the bureaucracy of the formerly revolutionary class? Without the elimination of private property, all one is doing is expropriating one rentier in order to enable another. Labour groups have management structures too.

There is the (trivial?) interpretation of "non-idle capital" whereby private ownership of capital is legitimized through the fact that the worker is the one operating it, but using this definition denies the ability to save money. This isn't very convincing! Yet the moment one allows for people who are retired, or facing medical disability, to demand a share of surplus value, all one has done is re-create the class of people who earn wealth through idle ownership.

You don't believe in a consensual authority? What about a college professor, or a doctor, or a dominatrix?

I disagree that authority is inherently hierarchical or non-consensual, if you think of authority as "being in charge". Again, take the OWS example. It is a horizontal, leaderless movement, but it's not without authorities. At your local chapter, there's probably some people in charge of media, some others in charge of organizing and planning, others in charge of kitchen, library, meeting spaces, legal, finance, press, and so on. Any random yahoo can't, for instance, announce where the next general assembly meeting is going to be and expect to be listened to. There are people in charge of that. But the community has chosen to organize itself this way voluntarily, collectively delegating authority and responsibility to the willing. I agree to let persons X, Y, and Z be in charge of Thing 1 because I'm in charge of doing Thing 2.

Again, a viable blueprint for society at large? Of course not. And I think the more realistic anarchists would admit that a society completely without some non-consensual authority would be impossible, but the goal is to minimize hierarchical, oppressive authority wherever it is possible.

1) College professors and doctors do not have authority over you. Nor do dom's, but that is another issue all together.

2) If any random Yahoo cannot announce where the next meeting is, then there is a hierarchy and he is below the guy who does get to make that decision.

OWS has been very successful, but it also shows the weakness of anarchist principles: they can't control who is or isn't a voice for OWS, and they can't exclude people who act in a way contrary to the purpose of OWS. If your local OWS chapter opposes violence and you have enough people to shun the one guy throwing rocks, fabulous; but if the rock-thrower has enough like-minded friends, then rock-throwing becomes how that OWS operates.

From anarchist friends I've had I understand that the main principle of anarchist groups is consensus - please correct me if this is wrong, but obviously in a group with no official hierarchy or authority, you have to get everyone to agree or at least abstain, you can't simply say "we voted and the rest of you have to go along with it". If you've ever done agreement by consensus this should make you run for an adult beverage.

Yeah there's a lot of split in the anarchist community at large over things like property destruction and violence. I've known quite a few anarcho-pacifists and a good number of insurrectionist anarchists as well. They'll never agree, but since anarchists hate being told what to do, they usually begrudgingly reach consensus on "we support a diversity of tactics".

You don't believe in a consensual authority? What about a college professor, or a doctor, or a dominatrix?

I disagree that authority is inherently hierarchical or non-consensual, if you think of authority as "being in charge". Again, take the OWS example. It is a horizontal, leaderless movement, but it's not without authorities. At your local chapter, there's probably some people in charge of media, some others in charge of organizing and planning, others in charge of kitchen, library, meeting spaces, legal, finance, press, and so on. Any random yahoo can't, for instance, announce where the next general assembly meeting is going to be and expect to be listened to. There are people in charge of that. But the community has chosen to organize itself this way voluntarily, collectively delegating authority and responsibility to the willing. I agree to let persons X, Y, and Z be in charge of Thing 1 because I'm in charge of doing Thing 2.

Again, a viable blueprint for society at large? Of course not. And I think the more realistic anarchists would admit that a society completely without some non-consensual authority would be impossible, but the goal is to minimize hierarchical, oppressive authority wherever it is possible.

1) College professors and doctors do not have authority over you. Nor do dom's, but that is another issue all together.

2) If any random Yahoo cannot announce where the next meeting is, then there is a hierarchy and he is below the guy who does get to make that decision.

Doctor may have been a bad example, but a professor can certainly tell you what to do and punish you if you don't do it. But you agreed to let them do that.

The yahoo and any other yahoos are welcome to volunteer to join the meeting planning team and pitch their idea. The team has the authority to dictate the meeting place.

Eh, there's "consensual authority" as in "voluntary, if minimally hierarchical, association" and "consensual authority" as in "well I want to eat, but all the existing farmland has already been enclosed by 'voluntary associations' that got there before me. And when I want to join them, they say: we don't want to work with you. And when I say: but there's no dang land left!, all I get it: well that's not our fault now, is it?"

It is no more meaningful to call the latter "consensual" than it is to call all unemployment and work conditions "voluntary", for the simple reason that whilst you may have "agreed to let them do that", you may not have had any meaningful ability to disagree. No hierachy need exist for you to starve, yet the spectre of starvation is coercive nonetheless.

The point is not that whoever is making the argument will start killing people and stealing things, it is that absent the threat of punishment from a government that there ARE a small portion of people that will do this. It doesn't take many of these people to ruin things for a whole lot of others.

Three things.

How many of these people are there? Like, percentage wise of the whole earth's population. 50? 60? 10? I know you certainly can't be exact, but a good estimate that we can work with will do.

Absent the threat from government isn't absent threat. People can and will still defend themselves. In fact, I'm even betting people will defend each other. There is strength in numbers after all.

If you allow for the bad guys to band together into groups as well, well then you have people who can actually cooperate, and why are they stealing and murdering? They can and do cooperate with people to maximize resources. So what's their motivation? Love of murder? Do you really think that there are a lot of people out there that just love killing?

Enough. There are enough people like that to fuck your entire system. Fuck, it would only take one self proclaimed warlord to force other people to adopt the same system or face life under his rule. I mean honestly, do you really find it that hard to believe that there are power hungry amoral people? Do you watch/read the news?

The problem with anarchists is that they think everyone thinks like them (which is especially moronic as there are anarchists who want the governments to fall explicitly so they can live in a feudal warlord system). That no one might take advantage of a power vacuum to get themselves some slaves and harem girls. You're delusional.

Okay, so you're going to take the "bad guys can cooperate but good guys can't" angle. So we've got one bad guy and thirty normal people (that's about a 30% ratio of bad guys in the general populace). What you're saying is that one bad guy will be able to force all 30 of those normal people to live under his oppressive and authoritarian rule with little to no resistance? All by himself? Of course not, so he cooperates with other bad guys, so that they all work together to oppress everyone. So why are they working together to oppress everyone? Do they have some drive to oppress? Do they just want to kill and enslave people? Do they just get off on it? And there are enough people like that such that the whole population can't resist them? Why don't the bad guys work with the normal people and reap the benefits while not exposing themselves to the risks of having to live like warlords?

I find it hard to believe that the power hungry amoral people are stupid enough not to maximize benefit while minimizing risk.

I don't get how that's different from government

In theory the difference is that one can leave the community at any time, and that the organization which evolved has the explicit consent of its members. Which no government on the planet does today. Since the anarchists I know all are obsessed with consent, this is what makes one organization just, and another not.

Uh.

Most democratic governments will allow you to leave.

What's difficult is getting another government to let you stay but that's still completely possible.

The ability to leave does not guarantee freedom any more than the ability to quit guarantees non-exploitation of labour

No, but Loser seems to believe that most democracies do not allow people to leave. That is untrue. People are free to leave America any time they wish.

he also believes that if they did allow people to leave (as they do), then this assures meaningful consent

which is wrong, is what I'm saying

The ability to leave does not in any way assure meaningful consent. In fact, it's entirely unreasonable to assert that you can just "leave." As you can leave, but you can't actually go anywhere.

Either way though, the ability to leave is not a sufficient condition for meaningful consent. However, it's probably necessary.

"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

It's not the state's fault that anarchistic systems have failed to secure their own usable areas. If anarchists can't even manage enough funds to buy a habitable island then that's fairly damning in itself that it's in any way a feasible system.

It's not the state's fault that anarchistic systems have failed to secure their own usable areas. If anarchists can't even manage enough funds to buy a habitable island then that's fairly damning in itself that it's in any way a feasible system.

It's not the state's fault that anarchistic systems have failed to secure their own usable areas. If anarchists can't even manage enough funds to buy a habitable island then that's fairly damning in itself that it's in any way a feasible system.

The ability to leave does not guarantee freedom any more than the ability to quit guarantees non-exploitation of labour

No, but Loser seems to believe that most democracies do not allow people to leave. That is untrue. People are free to leave America any time they wish.

he also believes that if they did allow people to leave (as they do), then this assures meaningful consent

which is wrong, is what I'm saying

The ability to leave does not in any way assure meaningful consent. In fact, it's entirely unreasonable to assert that you can just "leave." As you can leave, but you can't actually go anywhere.

Either way though, the ability to leave is not a sufficient condition for meaningful consent. However, it's probably necessary.

How are anarchic or anarcho-syndicalist communities proposed to avoid this problem? You could turn the whole world into autonomous villages but this would not resurrect the untamed frontier.

No, but it may result in more freedom of mobility. In fact, I imagine that the anarchist would maintain that it would result in more freedom of movement.

"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

The ability to leave does not guarantee freedom any more than the ability to quit guarantees non-exploitation of labour

No, but Loser seems to believe that most democracies do not allow people to leave. That is untrue. People are free to leave America any time they wish.

he also believes that if they did allow people to leave (as they do), then this assures meaningful consent

which is wrong, is what I'm saying

The ability to leave does not in any way assure meaningful consent. In fact, it's entirely unreasonable to assert that you can just "leave." As you can leave, but you can't actually go anywhere.

Either way though, the ability to leave is not a sufficient condition for meaningful consent. However, it's probably necessary.

How are anarchic or anarcho-syndicalist communities proposed to avoid this problem? You could turn the whole world into autonomous villages but this would not resurrect the untamed frontier.

No, but it may result in more freedom of mobility. In fact, I imagine that the anarchist would maintain that it would result in more freedom of movement.

What manner of superstate entity is guaranteeing inter-state freedom of movement here, because In Real Life modern countries feel tremendous populist pressure to restrict the movement of outsiders

I think that the issue is that there aren't any States restricting freedom of movement. So there is no guarantee of freedom of movement, but there is no restriction. I think that the anarchist would maintain that it's in the best interest of each community to allow for a liberal policy toward movement of populations.

"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

The ability to leave does not guarantee freedom any more than the ability to quit guarantees non-exploitation of labour

No, but Loser seems to believe that most democracies do not allow people to leave. That is untrue. People are free to leave America any time they wish.

he also believes that if they did allow people to leave (as they do), then this assures meaningful consent

which is wrong, is what I'm saying

The ability to leave does not in any way assure meaningful consent. In fact, it's entirely unreasonable to assert that you can just "leave." As you can leave, but you can't actually go anywhere.

Either way though, the ability to leave is not a sufficient condition for meaningful consent. However, it's probably necessary.

How are anarchic or anarcho-syndicalist communities proposed to avoid this problem? You could turn the whole world into autonomous villages but this would not resurrect the untamed frontier.

No, but it may result in more freedom of mobility. In fact, I imagine that the anarchist would maintain that it would result in more freedom of movement.

What manner of superstate entity is guaranteeing inter-state freedom of movement here, because In Real Life modern countries feel tremendous populist pressure to restrict the movement of outsiders

I think that the issue is that there aren't any States restricting freedom of movement. So there is no guarantee of freedom of movement, but there is no restriction. I think that the anarchist would maintain that it's in the best interest of each community to allow for a liberal policy toward movement of populations.

If I were an isolated anarchist commune, you'd really have to work to convince me that outsiders aren't bandits and dissenting departures shouldn't be stopped, enslaved, and put to work on my farm.

The ability to leave does not guarantee freedom any more than the ability to quit guarantees non-exploitation of labour

No, but Loser seems to believe that most democracies do not allow people to leave. That is untrue. People are free to leave America any time they wish.

he also believes that if they did allow people to leave (as they do), then this assures meaningful consent

which is wrong, is what I'm saying

The ability to leave does not in any way assure meaningful consent. In fact, it's entirely unreasonable to assert that you can just "leave." As you can leave, but you can't actually go anywhere.

Either way though, the ability to leave is not a sufficient condition for meaningful consent. However, it's probably necessary.

How are anarchic or anarcho-syndicalist communities proposed to avoid this problem? You could turn the whole world into autonomous villages but this would not resurrect the untamed frontier.

No, but it may result in more freedom of mobility. In fact, I imagine that the anarchist would maintain that it would result in more freedom of movement.

What manner of superstate entity is guaranteeing inter-state freedom of movement here, because In Real Life modern countries feel tremendous populist pressure to restrict the movement of outsiders

I think that the issue is that there aren't any States restricting freedom of movement. So there is no guarantee of freedom of movement, but there is no restriction. I think that the anarchist would maintain that it's in the best interest of each community to allow for a liberal policy toward movement of populations.

If I were an isolated anarchist commune, you'd really have to work to convince me that outsiders aren't bandits and dissenting departures shouldn't be stopped, enslaved, and put to work on my farm.

Not everyone is as interested in enslaving people as you are?

"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Eh, there's "consensual authority" as in "voluntary, if minimally hierarchical, association" and "consensual authority" as in "well I want to eat, but all the existing farmland has already been enclosed by 'voluntary associations' that got there before me. And when I want to join them, they say: we don't want to work with you. And when I say: but there's no dang land left!, all I get it: well that's not our fault now, is it?"

It is no more meaningful to call the latter "consensual" than it is to call all unemployment and work conditions "voluntary", for the simple reason that whilst you may have "agreed to let them do that", you may not have had any meaningful ability to disagree. No hierachy need exist for you to starve, yet the spectre of starvation is coercive nonetheless.

Missing the point. Voluntary associations are not authority, not in the way we're talking about. We are talking about authority as "the ability to enforce actions". Voluntary associations don't meet that criteria, you were going to do those things the authority figure is asking you to do anyway. You do not perform school work because if you don't your professor will punish you, you perform school work because you want the knowledge and skills contained therein and the professor is the best one to teach it to you.

We don't need contracts to ensure people do the things they were going to do absent the contract, we need contracts to ensure they do the things they promise then they choose not to do. There is no such thing as authority that enforces the former, there is nothing to enforce. There is only authority to enforce the latter

You know what? Monks and nuns of various persuasions have carved out small enclaves of their own ideal worlds.

Lemme stop you right there. Every monastery I know of was set up by an external statist force*, protected by the same, and lived at least partially off of tributes which they frightened out of neighboring groups, not with the sword of man, but the hammer of god. All of them had a hierarchical structure, and most all of the western ones tied into an autocratic state run by a dictator and his council.

Jim Jones and his flock could have made their compound successful if he wasn't crazy.

Jonestown was formed specifically because the central dictator Jim Jones wanted to isolate his flock from the protections of the US government, and when someone came to rescue some of his essentially imprisoned followers he had those followers and the rescuers ambushed by men with guns. Kind of the definition of non-consensual authority and force.

The branch Davidians? Tougher line there. They were stockpiling a bit for a presumed armageddon, they had one ex-gun runner who was seeking to "buy salvation" by giving his money to them and becoming a member, but it's all a big mess. I mean, in Texas "2 guns per adult" is actually a pretty low number. Living in Texas, I remember watching the locals reactions to the cult and if not for the government they probably would have gone "torches and pitchforks" in classic anarchist-justice style, but NOWADAYS every single former "burn 'em all" guy and gal I meet is convinced it just proves that Democrats are evil statist authoritarians and the BATFE needs to be destroyed entirely, and it was all the evil fedrul gubbmint. It's kinda like the 40%** of Americans who lie about having ever supported the Iraq War. The evidence suggests they were trying to die, but it also suggests the ATF screwed up on multiple levels and could have saved their own people, if not the cultists as well.

And actually, on reflection, the Iraq War is a pretty good example of why this line of, "No modern state is an organization which evolved has the explicit consent of its members," is nonsense. George W. Bush did not win in 2004 because of a few maybe-surpressed voters in Ohio (the only complaint with any teeth) and he did not invade Iraq against the will of the people. A majority of Americans supported both and a majority of Americans wanted what they got, even if they changed their minds later. We are still a democracy, we might be manipulated by propaganda and complacency and lies and nonsense but these things are COMPLETELY IGNORED by the anti-force anarchist. Do I like that ignorance runs rampant and the nation is full of fools? No. Do Americans tend to feel that their government is doing what they want? No. But does it still give them what they explicitly choose when run through the woodchipper we call reality and smashed by the press we call "other people with other explicit choices"? Yes indeedy. You have consent and you even have an untamed frontier, it's just instead of wild animals as the threat du jour you have the local warlords. Yes I'm talking about Africa. Hell you can even avoid that if you go to Antarctica, but let's be honest, anarchists don't just leave because they don't want to "live free or die." They just want shit to be run THEIR way. They want to live in this lovely society where harvests are so bountiful you have to TRY to get skinny, but WITHOUT the compromises and agreements made with all the folk they don't like or agree with.

Look, I want weed to be legal too and I don't even smoke. But that's life. At least we don't have forced prayer in schools anymore, for as long as we can KEEP having schools when you "anarchists" and "libertarians" keep voting for the Republicans who are actively trying to destroy the public school system.

*be it Rome, the local king trying to get into heaven, or the local daimyo trying to buy enlightenment.
**I'm guessing on that number, but I have known a lot who deny their past and support has fallen

You know what? Monks and nuns of various persuasions have carved out small enclaves of their own ideal worlds. Many of them have lasted through more than one "Statist" model. If they can do it through religious motivation, then there's no way that hardcore Libertarians or Anarchists couldn't.

A few people have touched on this. The point you are missing is that a monastery, convent, or those Buddhist monks living out in the woods are all economically supported by States and permitted, by the state, to occupy the geographic location in which they are found. They are not estranged from society since they are supported by society.

The problem with anarchism is that it wants to destroy the State, so the State isn't going to permit it to have a little convent out in the woods.

The other place to go with this is to point out that the hippies in St. Louis who live in condemned buildings and eat out of dumpsters aren't living in some anarchist utopia. They aren't even isolated or estranged from the State. They are demonstrably leeching off the thing they seek to overcome. Their survival depends on the thing they hate.

When you point this out to them, they begin to act like the silliest of geese.

If not directly economically supported, then they rely on the protection against the Barbarian horde guranteed by organized society, or the infrastructure constructed by organized society. (And as someone pointed out, it's not like these monasteries are non-hierarchial in structure themselves).

This isn't to say that you couldn't do what Malkor proposed and move into some enclave in the depth of a nationstate with an actual government and, by and large, lead the life you want (within in some limits). But this way of life would be made possibly solely by the existance of the surronding nationstate, and is thus not an evidence in favour of anarchist society.

On college professors: They have authority don't they? They can flunk you if you disobey their demands. Leaving you with the knowledge they taught, but without the little paper that says you do. Rendering your ability to apply said knowledge into a job problematic, in fact having a failing grade would make people think you are bad at the professors subject. The exact opposite of the reason you took the class.

There have been professors abusing said power, to gain favours from their students.

Plus college cost money, huge bundles of it, which you probably borrowed. Flunk and you got nothing but debts to show for it.

On college professors: They have authority don't they? They can flunk you if you disobey their demands. Leaving you with the knowledge they taught, but without the little paper that says you do.

I’d argue that if a student flunks, this resulted from their not attaining the knowledge that was taught. It’s not that a professor “gives” a student their grade. Rather, a student “earns” their grade.

The reason a student does not have the “little piece of paper” is their not gaining the information indicated by the little piece of paper.

In your hypothetical world of a student who learns 100% of the material but earns a failing grade, they could still apply the knowledge they gained in their job. The professor cannot take that knowledge from them. One’s grade in no way inhibits or enables an individual to use what they learned.

You know what? Monks and nuns of various persuasions have carved out small enclaves of their own ideal worlds. Many of them have lasted through more than one "Statist" model. If they can do it through religious motivation, then there's no way that hardcore Libertarians or Anarchists couldn't.

A few people have touched on this. The point you are missing is that a monastery, convent, or those Buddhist monks living out in the woods are all economically supported by States and permitted, by the state, to occupy the geographic location in which they are found. They are not estranged from society since they are supported by society.

The problem with anarchism is that it wants to destroy the State, so the State isn't going to permit it to have a little convent out in the woods.

The other place to go with this is to point out that the hippies in St. Louis who live in condemned buildings and eat out of dumpsters aren't living in some anarchist utopia. They aren't even isolated or estranged from the State. They are demonstrably leeching off the thing they seek to overcome. Their survival depends on the thing they hate.

When you point this out to them, they begin to act like the silliest of geese.

flamebroiledchicken said that only a few of his anarchist friends were the burn everything type. If there are other like-minded individuals or groups that can tolerate existing within the system, then why hasn't any anarchist group establish something that represents what they believe more than an OWS encampment or squatting in an empty building? They could sell all their shit buy a huge plot of land somewhere, and as long as they aren't doing anything too crazy, they'll pretty much be left alone. Yes, they'll still have to pay taxes or keep things at code, but that's still better than what many of them have demonstrated so far.

My point with the monks and even Waco is that they had their beliefs and lived as separate as you can be from the state without becoming their own state. Instead of firebombing things the anarchists can just gather up some money then live as horizontally and consenting as they want to amongst themselves.

If there are other like-minded individuals or groups that can tolerate existing within the system, then why hasn't any anarchist group establish something that represents what they believe more than an OWS encampment or squatting in an empty building? They could sell all their shit buy a huge plot of land somewhere, and as long as they aren't doing anything too crazy, they'll pretty much be left alone.

Well, that would require that they do something.

They prefer to just complain.

I can't think of other actual reasons. I still don't understand why a self-described anarchist would go squat in an abandoned building. I'm not sure what that accomplishes. You smell like shit and ate out of a dumpster. Great. Viva La Revolution!

On college professors: They have authority don't they? They can flunk you if you disobey their demands. Leaving you with the knowledge they taught, but without the little paper that says you do.

I’d argue that if a student flunks, this resulted from their not attaining the knowledge that was taught. It’s not that a professor “gives” a student their grade. Rather, a student “earns” their grade.

The reason a student does not have the “little piece of paper” is their not gaining the information indicated by the little piece of paper.

Nice theory, reality is different. Not to say that it doesn't work that way in most cases, just that it can work another way without much change because of the inherent power dynamics.

It is part of a professors job, not just teaching knowledge, but giving out proof that student have learned said knowledge and to what degree. Without the proof, it is harder to claim that you have the knowledge, which in turn means its harder to get the job you want. World is full of people with the right knowledge, but without anything to prove it. The world is also full of people without the right knowledge, but claiming they do. Which is why grades are important.

Students are supposed to earn their proof of knowledge(the grade), but reality of power means that it is the professors to give. That is why most Colleges have oversight and complaints department for students wanting a second opinion. Left unchecked the power a professor would be even greater.

It is part of a professors job, not just teaching knowledge, but giving out proof that student have learned said knowledge and to what degree. Without the proof, it is harder to claim that you have the knowledge, which in turn means its harder to get the job you want. World is full of people with the right knowledge, but without anything to prove it. The world is also full of people without the right knowledge, but claiming they do. Which is why grades are important.

Speaking of grades as proof of knowledge is odd. Professors are not proof dispensers.

The issue of knowledgeable people without degrees and unknowledgeable people with degrees is a large topic that could probably support its own thread. So, not going into that.

I will say, however, that your claim that grades are important is undermined by the claim that there are persons who have the “right knowledge”, but no way to prove it. Since a person can know X, without having any sort of grade-proof to evidence the knowledge of X, we have to reassess the importance of grades. Or at least discern the contexts in which they are important.

Students are supposed to earn their proof of knowledge(the grade), but reality of power means that it is the professors to give. That is why most Colleges have oversight and complaints department for students wanting a second opinion. Left unchecked the power a professor would be even greater.

I don’t think the “problem” of unchecked power in academia is qualitatively different than in any other social context. If police officers were not beholden to judges, for example, that could cause problems.

Given your statement that oversight exists in academia, I’m not sure what your point is. Professors are tasked with giving students the grades they earn, and if a student feels that they got a lower grade than they deserved, they can appeal to the dean.